You can always let it drop yourself. You have as much responsibility as I have for the entire situation. You ask me to stop, but at the same time, spend an entire page attacking me. You accuse me of taking no responsibility in my treatment of you, yet you take no responsibility for your treatment of me. I'm not crying wounded victim; you are. In fact, I even stated that I was intentionally pushing buttons, and that my motives were wrong.

I have stated what I will; I believe your irrational hatred of me, which you admit in this post by saying that I remind you of your mother, is blinding you to many things, including, or especially, my motives and is causing you to believe that I am attacking you or out to get you when I am not. Subtle attacks are not my style. I have all the skill at subtlety of an angry elephant...

You will take this post, too, as an attack, but it is not. It is an attempt at some kind of reconciliation, or at least communication which I believe we both need at this point. Continued ranting and screaming and repeating the same litany of abuses and supposed abuses at one another won't help either of our mental states, and can only serve to disrupt the board. I'd like this to stop. However, as per my usual behavior when I feel under attack, I am not willing to go completely private. This is as much for your sake as my own. I suggest we speak rationally to one another, either publically or with a neutral moderator of sorts.

Also, arguing rape is bad for a long time is far better than accusing people (such as Aaron) of rape and then dropping it. It's progress. Progress doesn't always feel good, I know... but the painful parts are necessary.

The one and only time I asked for your compassion by letting this drop, and you could not do it. Fine, I accept that it is in your nature that this was beyond your capability.

Katy wrote:I'm not crying wounded victim; you are.

You've repeated innumerable times that I was attacking you when I was not, or when I was just responding to one of your attacks. You even got people convinced that I was attacking you. And again, all I did was state my position and open up enough to try to show you that I can not take this anymore, and you call it another attack. That is twisting things, and that is one of the buttons that you like to push on me - and yes, you can push my buttons better than anyone else because you remind me of my mother when you do those things.

Then you falsely accuse me of hating you - false accusations is another button that you enjoy pushing like my mother. I do not hate you, and I have told you that before. I ran from BA, FP, and SW, running from you because I fear you, not because I hate you. I only went back to try to defend myself, then stopped posting immediately after the rules were changed that no one was to be attacked that didn't post from then on - yet I still got attacked and supposedly that was okay by the moderators because I had posted before the rules had changed. They would not put an end to it, and a week later it was still going on, so I realized I had nothing to lose by trying to bring some reality to the situation - no good - and even tried to illustrate the ugliness, and the application of "sticky buns" by posting pictures to illustrate how ugly people from those 2 boards were acting - but I never went back to BA. You didn't want me to talk to you ever again, so all those boards were left to you. I only asked for GF, which I was active in before you were, and you don't get into the deeper philosophy anyway - actually, you don't even consider yourself a GF member, yet you still post here. Why? And now you want us to talk publicly or with a moderator?

Yes I am wounded - PTSD is a brain injury caused by too much stress. Mine is chronic, complex PTSD. You pushing my buttons to so-called encourage me to get help is like jumping on the shoulders of someone with a bad back to encourage them to get a physical. You sniveling "she's attacking me again" every time I turn around is not the same thing.

Katy wrote:arguing rape is bad for a long time is far better than accusing people (such as Aaron) of rape

Nordicvs never suggested he was going to rape anyone. That was also not the same thing. You just see what you want to see in order to seek revenge for my telling Robert that you had copies of his chatroom discussions - just like how you tainted the cookies with dog anti-chew stuff to get even with your roommates for stealing some of your cookies when you leave them out (rather than just putting the cookies away). You are mean, and sadistic - kind of like a watered-down version of my mother.

Katy wrote:You can always let it drop yourself.

Since you can't, I'm going to have to, because I literally can not take this anymore.
.

You're not welcome at SW anymore, as you know, but I think you should come back to BA. People there like you. Several asked where you went for quite some time... You should have some kind of social group.

Shahrazad wrote:BA is not very active at the time. It's very boring to post in a dead board.

True, but there is some activity, and Elizabeth is a rather active poster herself, so there'd likely be quite a bit more. But that's not really the point. The point is that she's liked over there, and it's more relaxed than here plus threads such as the one with Nordic just wouldn't happen over there...

Good gracious, he even got [Sue] to call herself a man. You have to know she wouldn't have done that if not for this "woman" philosophy, so you know that is not an example of thinking for herself - so ironically, by calling herself a man, she exhibits "woman" as bad as the worst of them. What a puppy.

It's funny, but Sue has often been mistaken for a man ever since I have known her. For example, shopkeepers would often address her as "sir", and little kids would often wonder loudly to their parents, "why is that man wearing a skirt?".

Which is the more repulsive? A woman who mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values? Or a woman who is genuinely mannish?

Good gracious, he even got [Sue] to call herself a man. You have to know she wouldn't have done that if not for this "woman" philosophy, so you know that is not an example of thinking for herself - so ironically, by calling herself a man, she exhibits "woman" as bad as the worst of them. What a puppy.

It's funny, but Sue has often been mistaken for a man ever since I have known her. For example, shopkeepers would often address her as "sir", and little kids would often wonder loudly to their parents, "why is that man wearing a skirt?".

Which is the more repulsive? A woman who mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values? Or a woman who is genuinely mannish?

-

Does her face look more like a man's David? I'm just curious, maybe it's physiognamy.

I've known many women who were mistaken for men without being masculine in thought... I really fail to see where it is one or the other of those two options... One could certainly be a woman who looks like a man and follows men's thought, or a woman who neither looks like a man nor follows men's thought.

Katy wrote:I've known many women who were mistaken for men without being masculine in thought... I really fail to see where it is one or the other of those two options... One could certainly be a woman who looks like a man and follows men's thought, or a woman who neither looks like a man nor follows men's thought.

It's funny, but Sue has often been mistaken for a man ever since I have known her. For example, shopkeepers would often address her as "sir", and little kids would often wonder loudly to their parents, "why is that man wearing a skirt?".

Which is the more repulsive? A woman who mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values? Or a woman who is genuinely mannish?

Of the two? The first choice. But actually the third choice is more repulsive (if you choose to use that word); a woman who is mannish in appearance and who also mindlessly apes a man and reflects everything he values.

A woman who is constantly mistaken for a man is definitely not what most of us would consider a feminine woman. The feminine ones wear tight clothes, makeup, style their hair, high heels, etc.

I would say that roughly 90% +/- of the women I know do not wear tight clothes, rarely wear makeup, some style their hair (if it's short) and none of them wear high heels. None of these women could ever be mistaken for a dude. All are as feminine in appearance as any woman who wears get-up and glitter! The other 10% +/- are lesbians and intentionally alter their attire/hair styles to appear more masculine.

There are gender differences. My thesis research is surrounding story telling and gender and the essential thing is that men are more solitary while women are more likely to include the group... In addition men are likely to brag while women are likely to join eachother.

Actually, quite a bit of what QRS says has some basis in truth, but they have the bad habit of gross exaggeration.

Agreed. QRS stuff about gender is harder to refute than one might initially suspect because there is a certain amount of truth to their ideas about the differences between men and women. Rather than being a matter of them being totally wrong or totally right, it's an issue of degree. They take valid points too far, in my estimation.

We should never hesitate to tell the truth about any given subject, including gender differences. However, we should also never allow ourselves to cultivate extremism in the process. Yes, men and women are different, and yes, in some of the attributes that are valuable to people of a similar mindset as QRS, men are at an advantage. However, we are all human. Our differences are vastly outweighed by the problems and the potentials we all share.

All of these difference pale into insignificance when we are faced with the raw realities of life at an immediate, personal level. We must be careful not to become to isolated by thought. The nature of thought is separation and division, while the nature of experience is interdependence and commonality. The ever-present danger for the gifted thinker is the tendency to become self-exiled in one ivory tower or another, exchanging the complex immediacy of reality for the abstract perfection of thought.

When we do that, even with all the best of intentions, ideas, and insights, trouble soon follows.

Though their equation of memory with masculinity is highly problematic. I've never seen any research connecting the two. It seems to be that they completely made that up because it fit with their already skewed definition of Woman.

Agreed. I also don't understand their assignment of qualities like responsibility to men. In my experience, almost all talk of "responsibility" is female-oriented. Biologically, men have no particular reason to be interested in such a concept. Their evolutionary role is essentially to bash the wild animal for food or defense, build the hut, and impregnate as many women as possible without being ostracized. I'm not saying those are admirable goals for the modern male, but it is the way nature worked for eons before the technological age. Responsibility, which has to do primarily with the upbringing of the offspring and the maintenance of a favorable social order, is very much the territory of the woman in evolutionary terms. Men exist primarily to break stuff, make stuff, and spread the genes wherever possible. Women are designed to do the rest.

It's my view that women are essentially better suited for the majority of tasks in the world. Only those having to do with physical force, mechanical ability, or abstract reasoning are better suited to males. If artificial intelligence were invented to construct physical objects and develop advanced conceptual systems, women could do away with us entirely. Women are consistently better employees in almost any field, showing more reliability, loyalty, and personal responsibility. Men are better leaders and philosophers, but with the vast majority of people in the world being employee-types, women have a natural social advantage which they are now starting to realize in Western cultures. Women have always ruled the social world from behind the scenes. Now they are beginning to do so openly.

Unidian wrote:It's my view that women are essentially better suited for the majority of tasks in the world. Only those having to do with physical force, mechanical ability, or abstract reasoning are better suited to males. If artificial intelligence were invented to construct physical objects and develop advanced conceptual systems, women could do away with us entirely. Women are consistently better employees in almost any field, showing more reliability, loyalty, and personal responsibility. Men are better leaders and philosophers, but with the vast majority of people in the world being employee-types, women have a natural social advantage which they are now starting to realize in Western cultures. Women have always ruled the social world from behind the scenes. Now they are beginning to do so openly.

I agree with this overall or at least it agrees with my experiences. But it agrees as well with my view on 'femininity' which has developed quite close to that of the views found on Quinn's and Solway's websites, or Nietzsche's or Kierkegaard's for that matter.

One aspect that seems to be underdeveloped in the argument quoted above is captured by the following phrases. The first one from another paragraph of your post:

Unidian wrote:Men exist primarily to break stuff, make stuff, and spread the genes wherever possible. Women are designed to do the rest.

It would be interesting to explore what exactly is meant by 'breaking' and 'making' stuff. If we'd look at this in a more psychological way one could argue that any action that requires extreme penetration, persistence or counter-establishment orientation would lay in the masculine domain. Actually following your description of the feminine, one could deduce that 'women' have a lot of reasons to control, diminish even exterminate or falsify the masculine 'upset'. A bit like the system-womb-matrix against the One... to use a pop reference.

Unidian wrote:Men exist primarily to break stuff, make stuff, and spread the genes wherever possible. Women are designed to do the rest.

From a philosophical viewpoint, or perhaps a 'genius' one, this breaking stuff and making stuff, and 'spreading', conquering orientation is of primary importance to the growth of wisdom and the spreading of it.

Doing 'the rest' is not in any way wrong or unnecessary but in the context of this discussion forum (truth, wisdom, courage) it's nothing but logical and consistent to uphold masculine values and counter feminine values.

Unidian wrote:It's my view that women are essentially better suited for the majority of tasks in the world. Only those having to do with physical force, mechanical ability, or abstract reasoning are better suited to males. If artificial intelligence were invented to construct physical objects and develop advanced conceptual systems, women could do away with us entirely. Women are consistently better employees in almost any field, showing more reliability, loyalty, and personal responsibility. Men are better leaders and philosophers, but with the vast majority of people in the world being employee-types, women have a natural social advantage which they are now starting to realize in Western cultures. Women have always ruled the social world from behind the scenes. Now they are beginning to do so openly.

I agree with this overall or at least it agrees with my experiences. But it agrees as well with my view on 'femininity' which has developed quite close to that of the views found on Quinn's and Solway's websites, or Nietzsche's or Kierkegaard's for that matter.

One aspect that seems to be underdeveloped in the argument quoted above is captured by the following phrases. The first one from another paragraph of your post:

Unidian wrote:Men exist primarily to break stuff, make stuff, and spread the genes wherever possible. Women are designed to do the rest.

It would be interesting to explore what exactly is meant by 'breaking' and 'making' stuff. If we'd look at this in a more psychological way one could argue that any action that requires extreme penetration, persistence or counter-establishment orientation would lay in the masculine domain. Actually following your description of the feminine, one could deduce that 'women' have a lot of reasons to control, diminish even exterminate or falsify the masculine 'upset'. A bit like the system-womb-matrix against the One... to use a pop reference.

Unidian wrote:Men exist primarily to break stuff, make stuff, and spread the genes wherever possible. Women are designed to do the rest.

From a philosophical viewpoint, or perhaps a 'genius' one, this breaking stuff and making stuff, and 'spreading', conquering orientation is of primary importance to the growth of wisdom and the spreading of it.

Doing 'the rest' is not in any way wrong or unnecessary but in the context of this discussion forum (truth, wisdom, courage) it's nothing but logical and consistent to uphold masculine values and counter feminine values.

Unidian's post was quite queer and unintelligent. "Loyalty" and "reliability" are weak and questionable Unidian. Women's social behaviour is more destructive than creative, atleast for most of women.

Then you say "Only those having to do with physical force, mechanical ability, or abstract reasoning are better suited to males. If artificial intelligence were invented to construct physical objects and develop advanced conceptual systems, women could do away with us entirely."

Hmm what else is there other than physical force, mechanical ability, and abstract reasoning??? Hahaha, seems like you've uncovered the foundations of modern civilization. Men create artificial intelligence, not women. Men are capable of controlling their environment, not women, atleast not most of them anyway.

Faust13 wrote:Unidian's post was quite queer and unintelligent. "Loyalty" and "reliability" are weak and questionable Unidian. Women's social behaviour is more destructive than creative, atleast for most of women.

At least it didn't start with an ad hom. At any rate, as a woman, I'd say it can be either, and is probably about half each. Poor behavior, however, doesn't explain how a trait evolved (whether biological or social). The benefits of that trait do. Nat lists potential benefits.

Now, the fact is any trait has potential beneficial and negative traits. Think about sickle cell anemia. Protects against malaria (good) but if you are homozygous for the trait, you die (bad). Being social protects (good), makes less work (good) and makes specialization possible (which allows us to have any society at all). On the other hand, it leads to cattyness (bad).

There are gender differences. My thesis research is surrounding story telling and gender and the essential thing is that men are more solitary while women are more likely to include the group... In addition men are likely to brag while women are likely to join eachother.

What a crock of shit. Men are *sometimes* more solitary---if they have no gang or group of their own. That isn't the norm. Men are vastly more people-oriented; sports, ---shit, look at any job that needs to be done fast and correctly, and you'll find a group of men working intuitively together, while women gibber and chatter and do nothing.

(Christ, what people could learn by being out living life rather than learning of others in textbooks...)

Men do. Women talk. Men toss balls around with one another in a field---women bicker over prices at the shoe store. They twitter and stuff their faces with chocolate and hang out in malls having fun. Object-obsessed---the "group" around them is a herd. Ego-obsessed. Safety in numbers. Extra girls = extra mirrors to see themselves and be utterly sure they're extra-special pretty today...

(Women are herbivores---even information-wise. They gather it and either process it or find a reason to dismiss it. They create absolutely nothing, do they? Some with balls do, but that's rare.)

It takes a great coach to get a group of females, for sports for example, to stop whining long enough, crying and hissing long enough, boob-size-and-ass-size-measuring long enough, to be clear about a single task and work well as a team to get it the hell done. A fuckload of a lot of work and great coaching. Christ, look at a reality TV show (perfect glimpse into women collectively in society; micro-cosmic example), or any group of females in a mall trying to decide to do something. Yap yap, plot, scheme, teehee, trying to organize, delegate---and not do.

Meanwhile, men do it. Just fucking do it. Quickly, actively, aggressively, all in a team of people; faster than words. Faster than deliberation---intuition: a vastly, overwhelmingly "masculine trait." Or right-brainedness.

Naturally, men work well with others. That doesn't make them inherently individualistic; that is incidental. Masculism or right-brainedness does simplify, "less-is-better" of course, but it's more often a small pack for men. A squad. Team. Gang. Whichever.

Katy wrote:Actually, quite a bit of what QRS says has some basis in truth, but they have the bad habit of gross exaggeration.

But you cannot disprove mass observations; "exaggeration" is key to any diagnosis.